[Mike_Cirba]

The idea that any hole concepts from abroad had to spring from Mac's palette is simply another red herring.

While Wilson himself didn't go abroad until after his trip to NGLA, others within his committee like Griscom and Lloyd were regular overseas travellers to Europe and within the club at large men like Robert Lesley were as well.

Griscom had just been abroad to Europe in 1909 and given his friendship with Mac, I'm thinking that his March 1912 visit to NGLA was likely not his first.

Point is, MANY men in and out of Merion including other locals like Tilly and Findlay and Crump knew all of these holes as well.

The presence of any foreign hole concepts at Merion prior to 1912 is indicative of nothing specific to Macdonald.

His idea that was novel was to create a course with ALL holes based on ideal holes abroad...not in being the first to discover them.

In fact, given Mac's methods of precisely measuring those holes abroad in fine detail, I'd argue that the fact Merion's few model holes came off so poorly in terms of imitative playing characteristics is to me evidence of less Mac involvement, not more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I am on your side on this, but lets think this over!  I think CBM did influence them to put some holes in there. Even if Griscom had played in Europe, I don't necessarily think he would be qualified to put those holes on the ground without looking at CBM's survey maps.  Given that CBM's holes were never exact copies of the ones in GBI, I doubt he copied the plans and handed them off to MCC telling them to copy them exactly.  The plan was always, from what Wilson wrote, to adapt them to ground conditions.

And, how many trips could he have made to a yet unopened NGLA in 1910?  Perhaps he did go over during construction and suggested a return trip from the committee.  Just as likely, as they were sipping lemonade after their June 1910 MCC site tour, the idea came up from CBM himself.

There I go again, speculating!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I agree although what I'm contesting is this impression that's been created that only Mac even knew of the great holes so how in concept could Merion have even conceived of an Eden green on a par four prior to Wilson's trip abroad unless it was Mac's idea?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Perhaps its my perspective as a gca, but I think playing and studying the holes like Mac did are quite different.  If Pete Dye's island green was over there, then yeah, I think it would hit them between the eyes.  Is the greatness of some of the Scottish holes readily apparent on the first play?

It was only a few players who talked up the great holes of Scotland in writings, etc. and a few others who followed the lead and went over to study them.  CBM was probaby the most influential, although there were others, probably Scot pros who needed to use sound bites to get gca gigs, mostly!

[TEPaul]

"I was referring to you. How do you explain it?"


Tom:

Thanks for the answer. What error are you referring to that was made over and over again that you and Jeff and Mike repeated. Could you find the posts and show me the error I made over and over that you and Jeff and Mike repeated and I'd be glad to address and explain it? Are you referring to the January 11, 1911 date of the appointment of the Wilson Committee that you and Jeff kept repeating? If so, I already explained to you that I never said that and I don't know why you and Jeff thought I did and you kept repeating it.



"Where does Johnson Contractors fit into quote?"


What do you mean where does Johnson Contractors fit into quote? What quote? Do you mean where does the Johnson Contractors fit into the Wilson report that Lesley delivered to the MCC board meeting of 4/19/1911?



"I don't equate chairman of the construction committee with creator of the golf course. He wasn't chairman of the architectural committee."



Actually according to MCC board meeting minutes the committee Wilson was the chairman of was never referred to by the MCC board of directors as the "Construction Committee." If Wilson's committee was given a name by the board it appears it was the "Committee on New Golf Grounds" and it appears Wilson inherited the chairmanship of it.

[TEPaul]

Jeff and Mike:

While it might be interesting to mention on here the backgrounds of the others on Wilson's committee it probably will lead to just more rampant speculation. Nevertheless, as far as having the opportunity to go abroad regularly, Lloyd and particularly Griscom would certainly be the most likely candidates. Given who Lloyd worked for I think I could certainly fill you in on what some of his British and French business connections were and as for Griscom it certainly would be interesting to explain who his father was and what his business was----its pretty amazing and not unexpectedly it did tie directly into some of what Lloyd did. To say those two men at least had the opportunity and perhaps even the requirment to be abroad as much as any American of that time might not be an overstatement.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

On another thread in answer to my question about how the land at NGLA was secured versus when it was routed, you graciously quoted Max Behr in Golf Illustrated writing about the NGLA process, as follows;

. . . The ideal links is only to be made in any locality by finding the most suitable situation in a general way and then laying out the best eighteen holes that the nature of the land will admit irrespective of the amount of property used in the process. And this is really the most economical plan in the long run . . .
. . .

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.


In your essay, you argue that what happened in the site selection at Merion paralleled the process at NGLA.  You wrote;

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase.

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned...

...It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.

The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted. (p. 158, emphasis added.)

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.



Based on what we've since learned;

1) That M&W only made a single trip to Merion in June 1910, and we know that their recommendations are encapsulated in a single letter without any mention of a routing.

2) That according to your theory, the Francis Land Swap likely happened after June 1910, meaning that the 120 acres you claim Macdonald specifically recommended for the golf course would not have included the "triangle".    This seems at direct odds with Macdonald's methodology of selecting land that maximized the natural features as it would have created a very truncated Johnson Farm ending just 65 yards north of the quarry and almost certainly another boundary line well eastward of today's along Golf House Road to facilitate the mythical 117 acres with no triangle land.

3) The idea that Macdonald purchased over 200 acres, much more than he anticipated needing, in which to fit his golf course.   In fact, at first, the thought he'd need about 110 acres and could have a large real estate component for early subscribers.   When all was said and done he used about 75-80% of the land he bought for the golf course, which contrasts with Merion where the initial purchase of 117 acres needed to be supplemented later because it wasn't big enough to fit the course.

4) The idea that even with some rough sketch identifying a basic routing across over 200 acres at NGLA, months of additional planning, tinkering, surveying, sketching, and entire relocation of holes took place at NGLA yet it is being argued here that at Merion some final plan was put down in a day by Macdonald and the exact land was purchased based on that.    Of course, this is made even more unrealistic by the fact  that Mac was only there for two days total, once in June 1910, and once in April 1911.

5) The fact that we know that someone was doing "many golf courses" prior to the March 1911 visit of the Merion committee to NGLA.   If they had the routing done prior, why was this going on after then?

6) The fact that we know that after the NGLA visit, "five different plans" were conceived for the golf course.


I'm sure there's more, but based on all of this contrary evidence, would you still contend that Merion secured 117 specific acres in November 1910 based on an existing, finalized routing by anyone?

Even more specifically, would you still contend that Merion thought they needed "nearly 120" specific acres in July 1910 based on a specific, finalized routing by Macdonald/Whigham or Barker during their respective single-day visits??

[Jeff_Brauer]

TPaul and Mike,

IF we stick to the Dragnet mantra (just the facts m'aam) I recall the reports saying that CBM showed them the correct principles of laying out golf holes, etc.  That seems straightforward enough to be accepted at face value IMHO.

Mike,

What struck me about DM's quote was that the NGLA process was described as "ideal."  There is no way that MCC was in an ideal position, having to work with a developer to get the land it needed at the price it needed.  And, the 120 acres was CBM's recommendation and it was less than the ideal 205 - much more than required to allow flexibility.  Which is why original MCC holes crossed the roads, and the land swap was necessary, etc. etc. etc.  I doubt MCC was in position to emulate the perfect process CBM used at NGLA.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

You're correct there, of course.

I put a long post together the other day that argued precisely that...that Macdonald's interest was in spreading his correct "principles", and that is what he was trying to impart (which is EXACTLY what Hugh Wilson told us he learned from a design perspective from Macdonald) and why he would have been proud of Merion for following his lead.   Of course, that very realistic interpretation was pooh-poohed by the usual suspects.


Also, at NGLA, just to get to the point of identifying the natural features around which to start developing a very rough routing encapsulating some of the ideal holes they had in mind...making sure that of the 400 acres they had at their disposal that the features they liked best could be sown together by hedging their bets and "overbuying" roughly 200+ of those acres,   Macdonald and Whigham (undisturbed and dedicated to the process) still needed to spend "2 or 3 days on horseback" going over the property in great detail.

Contrast that to a day spent at Merion in June 1910, where along with travel, meals, social niceties, etc., they may have spent a few hours out actually looking at the site, which I've argued was very likely simply the 119 acres ("nearly 120 acres")  of the Johnson Farm's northeastern and southern quadarants at that time, which was also the only land that was outright "owned" and available for sale by Connell's group as of June 1910.

This is more of an interesting study of stark differences in approach, not intriguing similarities.

[TEPaul]

"TPaul and Mike,

IF we stick to the Dragnet mantra (just the facts m'aam) I recall the reports saying that CBM showed them the correct principles of laying out golf holes, etc.  That seems straightforward enough to be accepted at face value IMHO."



Jeff:

Actually the Wilson Committee report that was read to the MCC board on 4/19/1911 does not say that CBM showed them the correct principles of laying out golf holes, etc. The only thing I'm aware of that first said that was the article H. Wilson wrote that was to be a chapter in the book Piper and Oakley published in 1916. Wilson wrote that in the end of 1915 or the beginning of 1916 and obviously his brother Alan used that in the letter he wrote at Philler's request in 1926 about the beginnings of Merion East and West.

Interestingly we have like 3-4 different drafts of that article Wilson wrote for P&O and the first one is really interesting as Hugh Wilson wrote a paragraph of how to construct natural bunkers and then realized he was supposed to be writing basically about agronomy and he crossed out the entire paragraph with the notation it was on architectural construction and not agronomy.

If you really want to use the Dragnet Mantra, Jack Friday, get your facts straight!  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

"I believe that David Moriarty and Tom MacWood are SERIOUS researchers and not loose canons."

Patrick:

If you really believe that then why didn't either of them go to Merion FIRST?

Tom,

Let's be practical for a second.
You're well aware that David lives in California and Tom in Ohio.
They don't have the luxury of leaving their driveway and being on Ardmore Ave in five minutes.

In addition, neither one of them have the connections to gain access to Merion's archives.

Afterall Merion is where all the records of Merion are!

One has to wonder why Wayno chose to "selectively, and "incompletely" reveal the results of  his research efforts in the MCC archives.

Wayno, who  has had unfettered access to those records seems to have chosen to release only the records of his choosing.

You can't fault David and Tom for being "unsettled" with how things have transpired.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom Mac,

There is no possibility that one man routed the course! Not if you consider that:

*Francis did little by his own admission, but was responsible for the 15th and 16th via his land swap.  You are assuming the swap occured after the routing process and not during
*And that Lesley approved that swap. Lloyd approved the swap

*The (or for DM, "a") Committee did "many" routings The Lesley report does not identify who did the many routings

*CBM approved the rest of the routing CBM chose one five plans, no reason to believe they were five routings.

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you agree that David and Tom should have thought of that at the outset of this process, 6 or 7 years ago?

I've stated a couple of times that I would prefer Tom, Mike and/or Wayne to release (at a minimum) the information they reference, but that is not going to happen and there are legitimate reasons for that...so what's next?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Let's be practical for a second.
You're well aware that David lives in California and Tom in Ohio.
They don't have the luxury of leaving their driveway and being on Ardmore Ave in five minutes.

In addition, neither one of them have the connections to gain access to Merion's archives."



Pat:

Let's be practical??

Ok, let's look at say Bob Labbance who lived in New Hampshire and researched and wrote about courses and architect all over America. Let's look at Bill Quirin who lives in New York and wrote about a number of clubs and golf entities. Let's look at Phil Young who lives in Atlanta and has written extensively about a respected American architect who worked around the country and has researched and written about many of his courses around the country. Let's look at Jeff Silverman who just wrote a great history book for the CC of Rochester concentrating on its architectural evolution particularly the latest Hanse restoration. Let's even look at Wayne and I who wrote about William Flynn and his 50+ courses or even me who did a long design evolution report for The Creek Club in New York with the great help of their historian.

Did any of the above just exclusively sit behind their computers at home and try to do it all without actually and physically going to those clubs and courses, establishing an actual and physical working relationship with them and their material?

Of course not!

I know it's not the easiest thing to do and I know it takes a certain amount of travel and outlay but my point is if one is going to do these things right they pretty much need to follow the well know process and procedures that are the only way to do it right!

These two on this Merion subject have and continue to try to use some of use as some kind of research assistance for them while all the time criticizing us for what we provide or don't provide.

My point is if they want to do it right they pretty much need to do what we do and what all those good researchers and historians and writers mentioned above have done and continue to do.

At least that is my own opinion on this kind of thing and I believe it strongly. But I'm aware that others may not agree and may feel there is another and better way to do it these days. I think this perhaps upcoming article I mentioned should address-----these two quite different approaches and perhaps the pros and the cons of each and both.

[TEPaul]

"You can't fault David and Tom for being "unsettled" with how things have transpired."


Pat:

If you say that I really don't see how you could say you can fault any of us here with how things have transpired. I mean in some ways you were involved in the process of that essay appearing on this website. And you have to admit that the author sure didn't provide any of us here or even Merion with some advanced copy of the thing for review that he apparently provided you and a few others who aren't from here. What was that all about other than treating us here like some kind of enemy or adversary right out of the gate?

Again, you say I can't fault Tom and David for the way things transpired? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you on that. I have and continue to fault both of them for the way things transpired on here from beginning until to date and I sure have been pretty clear on that, don't you think?

I'm glad you brought this up, Pat, so others on this website can begin to see how this whole thing really did begin and how it evolved into what it has become!  

[DMoriarty]

What about the Francis Land Swap? Surely you cannot give CBM credit for that piece of the routing?

This is a good example of why I don't think the arguments about credit are productive.  You came up with a reasonable method for looking at credit; the person in charge should get credit.  I was just pointing out that in the case of the lay out plan, M&W appear to have been the persons in charge. Am I giving CBM credit for the Francis Swap?   I don't think so.  I wrote about importance of the swap in my essay and have since.    But if we base credit decisions solely on who was in charge and made the final decisions, then it was Lloyd and then apparently M&W who approved the swap. 

I think we are better off leaving questions of credit asid and trying to figure out what happened. 

No, I don't think CBM was just a sales pitch, I thought I made that disclaimer...I was just trying to point out that there is a view 180 degrees opposite of yours that could have some merit.

If and when all the facts come forward people can make up their own minds.   But surely the facts will (and do) support some interpretations more than others.

[JESII]

David,

I'll leave it at this...if Wilson was Chairman of the Committee that sent the final proposal to the baord, he was the person in charge, not CBM...CBM and HJW were thought of as advisors and their advice was to use the routing they sent to the board, there is little suggestion of anything more than that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Will they? I think the facts support a committee based design, with CBM helping enormously in his few days time, imparting more than they ever knew and probably some concrete suggestions along with the approval.  Exact details will never be known.

Even Mike C and TePaul have admitted that CBM probaby deserves a nod for a larger role, and you admit you don't want to diminish Wilson's huge contributions, some initial design, most construction and a lot on redesign.

Thus, I don't think facts will change interpretations.  IF MCC ever redoes their history I suspect the CBM contributions will be highlighted a little more.  And, because its a matter of opinion what the above noted contributions mean, you may not be satisfied with the added wording, just as some Wilson fans will be dissapointed if his design credit is reduced, even a smidge.

At this point, too many are invested in emotional arguments for facts we have to change things.  We have probably gotten as far towards the middle as we are going to get as a group.  I doubt we will ever get to the group hug on this, but many admissions have passsed in the night here.  In reality, the opinions based on facts have never been that far apart, one reason we argue fine distinctions so much here. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I would agree but I would note that David is seemingly no longer even contending that Mac produced a routing during his single-day visit in June 1910, likely due to the overwhelming evidence against it and of course can't argue that he did it during his only other visit to the site in April 1911.

As far as suggesting that Macdonald routed Merion at some other time, he has two big problems with that;  1) There isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that he did, and 2) he's put himself in a catch-22 position in simultaneously trying to argue that we really don't know (due to pronoun persnicketing ) who it was that laid out many golf courses on the new land but who THEN went down to NGLA.... while at the same time contending that it had to be Wilson's Committee going to NGLA to learn how to supposedly build the holes, but then again, on "OUR RETURN" argue again that we don't know who created five different plans!?!

Too funny!!

With next to no evidence left, the argument now seems to be reduced to some all-encompassing, ill-specified "management" role that Mac has now been posthumously and laughably assigned.

Apparently, since Mac approved of a plan, he has now been granted de facto, post-mortem responsibility for everything to do with the creation of the east course at Merion...he probably even picked the committee!  

But, given that abdication of responsibility by all those at Merion, I do have to wonder why Lesley had to bring the matter to the Merion Board of Governors seeking approval on April 19, 1911?

Hadn't King Charles already decreed it so?  


So, I guess that's some progress, although I do believe Tom MacWood is holding out for his H.H. Barker whistle-stop tour through Merion which gets points for creativity at least.

If necessity is the mother of invention, think about how badly TM must have wanted it to be ANYBODY but Hugh Wilson to come up with the stream of evidence "supporting" that one!  

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff,
That's a really finely worded recap.  Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"Exact details will never be known."

Even Mike C and TePaul have admitted that CBM probaby deserves a nod for a larger role, and you admit you don't want to diminish Wilson's huge contributions, some initial design, most construction and a lot on redesign.

Thus, I don't think facts will change interpretations.  IF MCC ever redoes their history I suspect the CBM contributions will be highlighted a little more.  And, because its a matter of opinion what the above noted contributions mean, you may not be satisfied with the added wording, just as some Wilson fans will be dissapointed if his design credit is reduced, even a smidge."




Jeff:

Those first words of yours---'the exact details will never be known' are the truest yet on this website and on this subject and isn't it the supreme irony that that is precisely what me and Wayne Morrison told Tom MacWood on our first two posts when he began all this on that thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion" six and a half years ago?!

Well, he didn't accept that and he called for the search for more facts. He got those facts eventually but the problem with his perspective is he said he never realized Macdonald/Whigam advised and helped MCC back then. He apparently thought he discovered that and that Merion should know about it and reflect it in their history. What he didn't know back then is Merion always knew about that and always reflected it in their records and history book very definitely prominently and appropriately enough!

This is the very thing this website and many of its participants need to understand or understand better. These two guys act like it wasn't until they arrived on the scene on this website in 2003 that Merion was capable of understanding their own history and that they were here to unravel some mystery about Merion East's architectural history.

There never has been any mystery of Merion East's architectural history and who in the main was responsible for the architecture of Merion East from the beginning and no mystery is going to be acknowledged by Merion either.

I didn't admit Macdonald should be given more credit in some future history book. I can see the credit he was given in the last history book and in MCC's own records from back then in the beginning and if that could be improved on at all it would be only in specifically mentioning that he was at Ardmore for a day in June 1910 and his letter should be included in the history, that he had Wilson and his committee to NGLA in early March 1911 (not at some point in 1910) and that he came back for a day (April 6, 1911) went over the ground again and the Wilson Committee's five plans and said he would approve of one because it contained, in his opinion, the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world and that that plan was selected by the Wilson Committee, submitted to MCC's board of directors about two weeks later and the board gave that plan their consideration and final approval and construction on it was begun shortly there after.

That's all the credit Macdonald deserves given the actual facts (and sans speculation) and that's what Merion will give him and has always given him. As for Wilson, he (and his committee) always have been given the credit (and now with Flynn later) but now another very good reason that he has been given the credit and should be given that credit is that Wilson Committee report to the Board meeting of 4/19/1911. THAT is something that definitely should be included in Merion's future history books that never has been before including the part of that report that mentions them (the Wilson Committee) laying out numerous different courses on the ground, then going to NGLA (including what the report said about that) then returning home and rearranging things into five different plans one of which would be selected and approved on 4/19/1911.

That specific information was never recorded in Merion's history book but in the future it probably will be as it should be! In my opinion, and I firmly believe in Merion's and their historians THAT is what has come out of this six and a half years discussion and debate.

As a postscript, I should mention that the one and only thing that David Moriarty really did discover about Merion's history that will DEFINITELY be included in Merion's history and a future history book that no one seemed to know in the last forty or so years is that Wilson really did go abroad in March/April 1912 for about six weeks and not at some point in 1910 for about seven months which had been reported in the Merion history since perhaps the early 1970s. The only thing is it had absolutely no effect on what Wilson and his committee actually did do back then (app fifty years BEFORE that story) which was far far more than the essayist of this essay on here "The Missing Faces of Merion" wanted to give him and them or did.

What the two main protagonists of some architectural revisionist history ON HERE of Merion seem intent on doing or trying to do is plying the idea that if they just keep mentioning this revisionist crap often enough or long enough somebody might actually start to believe it has some truth. They can do that if they want but Merion sure isn't ever going to buy it.

You offered your recap Mr. Jeffrey Brauer Esq, Sir, and the foregoing is my recap! 

[TEPaul]

You know something just occured to me. If we keep this thread going endlessly in about twenty years the total pages of this thread may even top the total thread pages of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's entire Discussion Group section!  

[Phil_the_Author]

"You know something just occured to me. If we keep this thread going endlessly in about twenty years the total pages of this thread may even top the total thread pages of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's entire Discussion Group section!"

Heck Tom, 20 DAYS is more like it!    

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Geez! I tried to minimize it, especially with the words "nod", "highlight" and "smidge" to describe how the speedometer might move, well, a smidge on the CBM front. I hoped that would satisfy the Wilson fans, but I guess not.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Count me in for a smidgeon or two because I'd never known prior that he came back in April.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()